This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

He's actually correct. If you use the slippery slope fallacy argument concerning same sex marriage, the slope really begins with allowing marriage. You may not like it, but that is where it begins. Better to not use such fallacious arguments in the first place.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

You keep trying to attack me personally that doesn't interest me. You also admit that this is an emotional issue for you. Not a logical or rational one.

Selfish and emotional

When other people try and change society and institutions/meaning of words that have existed since the beginning of time, that makes it my business. I care about the children who have no say and are forced into these Frankenstein families because of cultural marxism and political correctness.

The definition and notion that marriage = man + woman is not an opinion. It is fact.

Emotional conjecture.

If I wanted to join an all female gym club, all I would be doing is asking. That doesn't mean they would let me join. All sisters wanting to marry sisters, brothers wanting to marry brothers, fathers wanting to marry adults sons and women/men wanting to marry roller coasters would be doing is to be allowed to get married. It's all trivial and selfish.

Canard. False premise.

SSM isn't an improvement or superior form of "marriage". It's a pointless, unnecessary and trivial thing. Gays should respect the institution of marriage as it currently stands and create their own institution. Instead they selfishly want to change marriage to fit their emotional needs while still excluding other groups that want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior the same "special rights".

Gays are the ones who insist on sticking their noses in other people's business. Gays are the ones who insist they deserve the special right to change the definition of marriage as it has always been know since the beginning of human history over any other group that wants to "marry" based upon sexual behavior.

Still engaging in ad hominems, hyperbole and emotional arguments I see

Sounds like you are engaging in conspiracy theories. Also looks like you are desperately rolling out the "bigot card" because you are losing the debate

At the expense of the institution of marriage. At the expense of children who have no say when they are thrust into these inferior combinations of families. The radical militant gay activists have said, and you can read the link in this thread, that this attack on marriage is not about equality. It is about the destruction of the traditional family. Historically, this type of thinking has proved to be a disaster. In their own words. "Why can't children have 5 parents?". Unfortunately these selfish radicals never ask these children if they want 5 parents. People who are advocating obviously don't care what the children think.

Have mentioned it many times in this thread but once again you have to try and engage in laughable hyperbole because you are unable to refute logic. Bigot Card = you're losing the debate

I actually have known quite a few gay people and have nothing against gay people personally. What I have an issue with is people trying to change institutions that have existed since the beginning of human history for their own selfish needs. Homosexuality is based upon sexual behavior. That is what identifies a homosexual. Now you're once again doing the emotional argument thing, and dismissing science.

It's not real marriage. It's pretend marriage.

I'm sure they are wonderful people. Doesn't mean they get the special right over other groups that want to marry based upon sexual behavior or because they "want to get married". I'm sure Roller Coaster girl is a really sweet person. Doesn't mean her marrying a roller coaster is real marriage.

I haven't done that though. You are the one who is now doing it and projecting your own bigotry. Using the "bigot card" = you are losing the debate

Ad hominems and hyperbole. Doesn't interest me.

Again you are being disingenuous. I have never once mentioned religion or used religion as a basis for this discussion. The fact of the matter is CA voted down gay marriage and the radical militant homosexuals didn't accept the will of the people. They are trying to use the courts to override the will of the people.

So you're fine with using the court to ram a political agenda down the throat of the public (no pun intended) as long as it fits your beliefs ideologically. Fascism.

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

You still have not shown how allowing gay marriage to exist improves upon the institution of marriage because it doesn't. It trivializes marriage. Marriage has always had specific social and economic purposes. Gay Marriage doesn't nothing to improve upon that. Traditions don't necessarily exist just because they are "old fashioned". They can exist because through trial and error over centuries, humanity has found them to be the most optimal way to do things. Nobody thought of gay marriage before because it's not a good idea. Just like allowing someone to marry a roller coaster isn't a good idea. Sure emotionally that woman wants to marry a roller coaster, but it is the selfish emotional need of a child.

Ketchup will always be ketchup. Mustard will always be mustard. Marriage will always be marriage despite what homosexuals or w/e combination of trivial unions people can think of.

On the contrary marriage is much more important than a condiment. It has specific social and economic purposes that benefit society as a whole. Trying to change it's definition is absurd. You're the one who wants to flippantly change the meaning of words to fit your emotional needs. Those are childlike needs. Not logical or rational needs.

The only type of marriage that is real marriage is man + woman. Man + ? or woman + ? is not real marriage. It never will be.

No they don't. Individual human flaws do not discredit an entire institution which has been shown to be a bedrock of humanity since the beginning of the human race.

Gays getting married does trivialize the institution of marriage. It's pretend marriage. Not real marriage. I can claim I'm part of an all female gym, but that doesn't make it true.

Hyperbole and objectification because you can't refute facts

Sham marriages. Not real. A lot of ignorant people are easily swayed by emotion. Doesn't make them experts.

Gay marriage has never been a widespread notion. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality. Historically there is no evidence that gay marriage has ever been a widely accepted or practiced as a concept. If gays want to have a ceremony and call it marriage they can but that doesn't make it real marriage. They are sham marriages. Pretend marriages.

Anyways you're all over the map here emotionally and resorting to cheap personal attacks. Feel free to reference this post and any previous post if you have any further replies. The whole "you're a bigot because you don't agree with me" is tired and cliche and not worth taking seriously.

Your constant dodges are noted.
And all your cheap tactics you yourself have been employing is for all to see.
Yep,I'm selfish and emotional.So what,doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And you're arrogant and ego-maniacal,so neither of us are perfect.
If marriage is the bedrock of society,then surely it is strong enough to support gay marriage.

Why don't we let others decide for themselves who is winning the debate between us,shall we,or is that too much to ask of you?
You calling gay marriages "shams" and pretend marriages doesn't make it reality,it make it JUST YOUR OPINION.

If you are so tired of being referred to as a bigot,may I suggest you stop behaving like one?All I'm doing is calling a spade,a spade.
That's logical,isn't it?

I also admit that it is a financial issue,Anything wrong with that?
Me making lots of money off gay weddings trumps you feeding your "feewings" and ego any day,at least to me it does.

The issue isn't the definition of marriage,the issue is whether or not it can be changed.You have failed to show how SSM is truly harmful.

SSM may be trivial to you,but it isn't to a lot of people.Your opinions,on the other hand,are trivial also.

Let's face it,I can't convince you,and you can't convince me.
But how we convince others is entirely different thing.

And more and more,my stance on SSM are convincing more people than yours are.

Marriage is not the same as a female only gym.

The reason why no one has come up with the idea of SSM is because people like you used to kill people for that.

Being gay is not about race.It's about being gay?
I've already asked you how gays historically been treated by people just like you.You didn't answer that,I noticed.
How the hell is gays wanting to get married sticking their noses into YOUR business?You have already stated that it doesn't effect you.Yet you are still trying to convince people to be against SSM.Sounds like you are sticking you're nose into other peoples business to me.

Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

that means soon it will be legal to marry your dog and for your horse to be able to vote, the end is near, the end is near!!!!

LMAO where did i here this nonsensical, dishonest, appeal to emotion fear tactics at before?

oh thats right, people said those, inane, mentally inept comments when minorities were given rights, and when woman were giving rights. It was stupid and illogical then and nothing as changed about that argument today. Its still illogical and stupid.

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Why don't we let others decide for themselves who is winning the debate between us,shall we,or is that too much to ask of you?
You calling gay marriages "shams" and pretend marriages doesn't make it reality,it make it JUST YOUR OPINION.

I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that you are losing this debate. You are engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and shamelessly using the bigot card.

If you are so tired of being referred to as a bigot,may I suggest you stop behaving like one?All I'm doing is calling a spade,a spade.
That's logical,isn't it?

I also admit that it is a financial issue,Anything wrong with that?
Me making lots of money off gay weddings trumps you feeding your "feewings" and ego any day,at least to me it does.

Your anger is showing

The issue isn't the definition of marriage,the issue is whether or not it can be changed.You have failed to show how SSM is truly harmful.

Of course the issue is the definition of marriage. You want to make it about something else because you will not win that debate.

SSM may be trivial to you,but it isn't to a lot of people.Your opinions,on the other hand,are trivial also.

Gay "Marriage" is trivial and pointless. It does nothing to improve on the institution of marriage and offers no social or economic benefit to society. Gay people emotionally want something. It's selfish. They should create their own institution of unions and leave marriage alone.

Let's face it,I can't convince you,and you can't convince me.
But how we convince others is entirely different thing.

This is a political message board where junkies hang out. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.

And more and more,my stance on SSM are convincing more people than yours are.

People are easily swayed by emotional arguments. It is true. A lot of people have sat by though for a number of years and allowed Hollywood propaganda and indoctrination in our schools to shape young stupid minds. That can change.

Marriage is not the same as a female only gym.

Both are exclusive institutions. So yes, it is a valid comparison

The reason why no one has come up with the idea of SSM is because people like you used to kill people for that.

Laughably pathetic hyperbole. Par for the course.

Being gay is not about race.It's about being gay?
I've already asked you how gays historically been treated by people just like you.You didn't answer that,I noticed.
How the hell is gays wanting to get married sticking their noses into YOUR business?You have already stated that it doesn't effect you.Yet you are still trying to convince people to be against SSM.Sounds like you are sticking you're nose into other peoples business to me.

Treated by people like me? I'm not a Democrat like George Wallace that blocked the entrance to schools. Being gay is not a race. There is no biological evidence that there is a gay gene, though scientists keep trying. There have been homosexuals who have become straight. You have any evidence that a black man has ever become white besides Michael Jackson? The case can be made that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and in fact it was classified as such within the DSM criteria until the mid 70s. It was only removed for political reasons. Not scientific ones.

Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Originally Posted by Bronson

What dodges. I make absolutely sure to quote everything you write and response accordingly. The fact that you can't refute what I say is not a dodge.
You're doing that personal attack thing again. That doesn't interest me. Marriage is doing just fine without trivial marriages like gay marriage and roller coaster marriage.

I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that you are losing this debate. You are engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and shamelessly using the bigot card.

Your anger is showing

Of course the issue is the definition of marriage. You want to make it about something else because you will not win that debate.
Gay "Marriage" is trivial and pointless. It does nothing to improve on the institution of marriage and offers no social or economic benefit to society. Gay people emotionally want something. It's selfish. They should create their own institution of unions and leave marriage alone.

This is a political message board where junkies hang out. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.
People are easily swayed by emotional arguments. It is true. A lot of people have sat by though for a number of years and allowed Hollywood propaganda and indoctrination in our schools to shape young stupid minds. That can change.

Both are exclusive institutions. So yes, it is a valid comparison

Laughably pathetic hyperbole. Par for the course.

Treated by people like me? I'm not a Democrat like George Wallace that blocked the entrance to schools. Being gay is not a race. There is no biological evidence that there is a gay gene, though scientists keep trying. There have been homosexuals who have become straight. You have any evidence that a black man has ever become white besides Michael Jackson? The case can be made that homosexuality is a psychological disorder and in fact it was classified as such within the DSM criteria until the mid 70s. It was only removed for political reasons. Not scientific ones.

You know what Bronson,screw all this.
I'm not the least bit interested in winning a debate here with you.
I'm interested in promoting and protecting my daughters happiness,and making lots of money.
I'm a chef,and if you want me to cater to your ego,you have to pay me for that.

You want to talk about the "definition of marriage",here is my definition.

The first couple of years were crazy for Selena and me when we got first got married.Both her and my three daughters had to adjust to each other.I was busy trying to get my company of the ground.My wife's a doctor,so both our schedules were busy and hectic.But we always found time to spend with one another and the kids. We always set a side a family day (and a romantic night) every week.We like old movies,dancing to big band swing,and me and her do a killer karaoke version of "Baby It's Cold Outside".We meet for lunch whenever we can.

My wife is a great doctor,but was lousy cook back then.Suffice it to say,I made most of the family meals (not a big deal,I'm a chef).
Me and Selena are opposites in so may ways,yet so similar in quite a number.She's athletic, I'm not.She's tall,I'm not.She's beautiful looking,I'm just average.

The fight we had the first time I saw her credit card bill was epic.Lots of shouting,slamming of doors,and me sleeping in the guest house for 3 days.
But the make up sex was worth it.

We bickered about money,where to go on vacation,how to discipline the girls,what schools to send them.

Med and Selena have gone through the good times and the bad together.From trying to get the girls to school on time,and picking them up from school.
To the fire that almost wiped out my first restaurant.And the first time she lost a patient on the operating table.We stood by one another
We've dealt with dance recitals,and softball league.
Through the first daughter hitting puberty,and discovering boys.
Then the second going through puberty,and her rebellious heavy metal phase.

By the third daughter we weren't even shocked when she come out at 16. Didn't bother us one bit. After what we went through with the other two,homosexuality was a relief.

To the oldest daughter leaving for college.Then the second.Me and Selena went through it together.
Through my first daughters wedding and the birth of our twin grandchildren.and now finally the youngest.That hit Selena the hardest.The empty nest syndrome.We went through it together.

Now we have more time for one another.Even after all these years,I'm still falling in love with her.Just today,when she got off shift,she goes to the kitchen,sits on the counter,lets me use her as a guinea pig for the rabbit gravy I'm working on (she thinks it need a little more kick),and tells me about her day while I'm chopping veggies and Sam Cook is playing on the radio.
We danced to "You Send Me",and I wished that moment with her would never end.
Our's is not a perfect marriage,but it is a good one.

That is my definition of marriage.Speaking of it from a personal perspective,because that is what any of us can really only do.
How others may define their marriage is their concern,not mine.
My concern is getting people who want to get married to have their wedding at my banquet halls,using my catering company,eating my food,going to my restaurants.
Gay or straight,weddings are my business.
Money talks,and bullcrap walks.

Why would I want to deny what me and Selena have any of my children.The happiness I've have with Selena is something I wish everyone can have.If my daughter wants to marry a woman,I'll do the catering.Gays wanting to marry each other,it's no skin off Selena and my backs.
In all honesty,Bronson,I couldn't care less about debating you on this issue.

Because I've already won.

SSM being allowed across the country is inevitable,whether anyone here like it or not.
I live in a state that already allows gay marriages.
I couldn't care less if you think my daughter's marrying a woman is a sham,trivial,or a pretend marriage.Your opinions are absolutely irrelevant that particular subject.She's going to marry who she want, and there's nothing you can do to stop that.

Gay marriages are not going to end the world. Anybody who is somehow effected by gay people marrying,well it sucks to be them.
None of my concern if it offends them.
I couldn't care less about your definition of marriage.I have my own,and if you have an objection to that,tough.
I don't have to accept yours,you don't have to accept mine.
Let others judge the merits of our debate for themselves.

I have very close friends who are gay,and I've seen gay married couples for years.I and Selena have gone to Lake Tahoe and Hawaii with Ethan and Phil.They say they are married,and I have no problem with that.Had them over for dinner last week.Phil and Selena play tennis together.Gays getting married doesn't bother me and Selena.Why should it bother anyone else?
If your anyone else have a problem with gays getting married,using the word marriage,or whatever that,that is none of my concern.
Couldn't care less if you do.It doesn't diminish what me and Selena have.
If anyone's marriage is trivialized,or diminished because gays are getting married,or using the word marriage,may I suggest they go see a marriage councilor.
What I want my gay daughter to have.A great marriage.
My daughter wants to be married to the woman she loves.
If that is being selfish,if that is being emotional,so be it.
It is what it is.She's the one who has to live her life,not anyone else.
As long as she's happy,I'm happy.
I'll do whatever I have to to see she stays that way.
That's what parents do.

I'm in the catering business,so weddings,gay and straight, make me a lot of money.
There nothing wrong with making an honest buck.
If SSM goes nation wide,I'm planning on expanding my operations and hopefully make a profit from it.
I'm not the only one in the culinary industry with that type of ambition.
We are talking millions of dollars in potential revenue.

Of course my anger is showing.People trying to prevent gay people from getting married,from even using the word marriage really piss me off.
Trying to convince others not to let them get "married".
Doesn't seem fair to me.
I've always been the type to speak out against unfairness.
To me,love trumps tradition any day.
More and more people,just like me, are doing the same thing.Speaking out.Everyday,ordinary people.
You (and other like you,Bronson), are using fear and logic to persuade others that gay marriage is wrong.
I'm using love and emotion to persuade others that it isn't.
Time and History will judge which one of us has ultimately won this debate between you and me,Bronson.

Re: Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Like I said, if you use this fallacy, it has too start with allowing marriage. But, if instead you think, you will know that there is either a valid argument to prevent each challenge or there isn't. And you not liking I is not a valid reason. That is not a reason for YOU not to do it.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.